One Boat, One Story, One Trial: Why a Florida Court Refused to Split a Vessel Replevin Case

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270(b) lets a trial court order separate trials of claims “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice.” That discretion is real, but it has a limit. As the Third District put it, “it is well-settled that it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law to sever claims that are inextricably interwoven based on the risk of inconsistent verdicts.”

“it is well-settled that it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law to sever claims that are inextricably interwoven based on the risk of inconsistent verdicts.”

Third District Court of Appeal, Glover v. Vasallo (2020)

The reason is practical. If two juries, or a judge and then a jury, decide overlapping questions separately, they can reach opposite answers on the same facts. One factfinder might decide the sale documents were genuine; another might decide they were forged. The parties would then be stuck with irreconcilable results, and an appeal after the fact cannot undo the waste of a second trial. That is why the court treated an erroneous severance as the kind of harm that justifies certiorari review before final judgment.

The opinion collects the ways Florida courts measure whether claims are “inextricably interwoven” or “intertwined.” Claims are intertwined when they share identical or substantially similar allegations of fact or law, arise from a single injury, require the same findings on fault, responsibility, reliance or causation, or depend on the same evidence. Claims built on the same circumstances, act or legal instrument share a single injury.

Applied here, the overlap was hard to miss. The replevin count and the negligence counts against the buyer turned on the same questions: whether our client was the lawful owner entitled to possession when the buyer paid; whether the buyer bought, operated and stored the boat without title or required documentation; whether the buyer had actual or constructive notice of a defect in title; and whether the documents the buyer relied on were fraudulent. The allegation that those documents caused our client’s loss ran through the replevin count and sixteen others. The same witnesses, contracts and receipts would be offered at both trials.

The court also found legal overlap, especially with the conversion counts. Conversion is the “exercise of wrongful dominion or control over property to the detriment of the rights of the actual owner.” Replevin targets the “unlawful detention of personal property from plaintiff at the commencement of the action, regardless of whether defendant acquired possession rightfully or wrongfully.” Different remedies, but as the court observed, “the gist of both theories is to similarly test Glover’s right of possession.” Trying one first could moot the other, which is exactly what the severance rule exists to prevent.

With the case kept together, we moved for summary judgment on replevin. Summary judgment in a contested replevin case is uncommon, because ownership fights usually involve disputed facts. Here the evidence came largely from the buyer’s own testimony. On December 14, 2021, the court granted the motion. Its findings included that the dealer did not hold title or have authority to sell; that the buyer knew the dealer was not the owner; that the buyer never checked title with the State before paying; that the sale documents relied on were not signed by our client; and that title never transferred.

The court applied a principle Florida courts have long recognized: in the absence of estoppel or waiver, no one can convey better title than he has. It also relied on Florida’s vessel titling statute, section 328.03, and on cases placing the burden of checking title on the buyer of a titled vehicle. A buyer who relies on a seller’s word instead of the public title record, the court explained through those cases, “cannot escape the result of his own carelessness.”

The order directed that possession be released to our client and that title be restored in his name. After the buyers sought rehearing, the court held a two-day rehearing and on May 12, 2022 entered a final order on replevin declining to disturb its ruling and stating plainly: “Title never passed from Plaintiff to the Vasallo Defendants.”

“Title never passed from Plaintiff to the Vasallo Defendants.”

Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Final Order on Replevin (2022)

We handle cases where boats, vehicles and other titled property are sold, retained or financed without the owner’s consent, and we pursue the property and the people responsible together. If your boat was taken, sold or held without your authorization anywhere in Florida, call us at 305-748-3789. Meetings by appointment only.